Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5611659" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Yep, glad we agree.Only if that's reasonable, Hussar. In the example I gave, if they arrive after the diplomat (and succeed in convincing the guard that they're the diplomat, even though he's already shown up), the the king, chancellor, and real diplomat (who are all together discussing business) will get a contingent of guards and meet the party at the gates, to sort this whole thing out.That's reasonable. If they succeed in some Bluff checks with quick thinking, then the NPCs will believe their bluffs. If their bluffs are reasonable enough that they can complete their goal, then I have no problem with that being the case.You're looking at one of the worst case scenarios for the PCs, because I specifically gave one to Lost Soul at his request to demonstrate how I use degrees of success and failure in my game. So, things start out bad for them. I am in no way out to get my players.I think we differ on what they succeeded on. I say they succeeded on the lie (and you and the rules seem to agree with me), but you also seem to think that means they succeeded at manipulating their way into the castle (the goal of their lie). So, while we both agree that they succeeded, we're talking about different things when we say "success".Additionally, these factors were determined before the PCs acted on it. The date the NPC was to arrive, his background with the king, etc. All of this was not manipulated on the fly to screw over the players.Well, they can succeed at getting past the gate guard, as I've pointed out over and over and over. If you still don't think I'll let that happen, all I can do is shrug and tell you that my experience at my table trumps yours.Yeah, looks like we do <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The player dictating that is against the rules, and considering the example we're using (the one I provided for Lost Soul), it's unreasonable. If we use the example NewJeffCT used in his original post, it's also likely unreasonable that he just lets you in without some sort of justification. Maybe the bluff is adequate, maybe it isn't. Other factors will really decide this.Again, you're talking about something that isn't happening, and have referenced it multiple times throughout this thread. There is no "endless succession of yet more skill checks" in any example I've given. In fact, in the example I've given in this very post, it's trying to Bluff the king, diplomat, and chancellor (1 check, opposed by 3 others).Where you get some of these assumptions is beyond me, especially after I've addressed them time and again.I go with the most reasonable response. The players know to rely on that. To favor the players is akin to fudging rolls, which I don't do (I roll out in the open, and have never owned a DM screen). I don't pull punches. I don't favor them in-game (even if I root for them as a friend). I don't favor their opponents in-game. If a PC dies, I tell the player I'm sorry, and he tells me "it's okay" and we move on. I don't like doing it, but I don't pull punches.To do what you suggest is fine, but it's too narrative for me. Our style is different. And that's fine. My group is not alone in how we play, and even if we were, it'd be fine.I've answered these questions many, many times. I've attributed it to play style difference pages ago.As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification